As the Assistant Director of the Arts Education Partnership (AEP), Mary works at the intersection of workforce trends, education, and policy. She understands that while much of the modern conversation around career readiness focuses on technical skills and final products, the habits cultivated in creative spaces, like learning how to navigate process, iterate through failure, and think flexibly, are the exact skills tomorrow’s jobs demand.

A: From my perspective, there are at least two points of disconnect. It usually isn’t that decisionmakers don’t value the arts. They just may not have the experience or data to understand the impact of the arts on education and the economy. So when competing priorities come into play, decisions often aren’t made with the intention of supporting arts pipelines.

There is also a lingering misconception that arts are only for those with “talent” and that training should be left up to these individuals to fund and pursue on their own. We know that the arts are for everyone regardless of whether or not they will go on to have a professional career in the arts. So I think it comes down to proximity and perception of the arts, and ideas about who is responsible for funding and creating pathways.

A: The data is telling, but the power is in the stories. How do we uplift stories about how these programs are life changing? And, how do we tell that story in a way that articulates the specific value of the arts? A common narrative is that similar benefits can be found through sports or other community programming. While true, there is nuance about the unique benefits of the arts that can best be told through making these programs and benefits more visible..

A: Durable skills and the language around these skills has begun to be used consistently in the education policy space. We have shared the report with Commissioners of Education Commission of the States, and are working to convene this group of policymakers at our Annual Convening in September. There is definitely alignment surfacing from the report and general education priorities and we’re hopeful we can continue to help foster these connections!

A: We talk a lot in the arts about defining success by the process of learning as well as the product, sometimes the product being the least important outcome! As AI tools (particularly generative AI) become more prevalent, we need to think differently about how we assess learning outcomes across disciplines and what is most valuable for students. There is a huge opportunity for other content areas to learn from the decades of practice the arts field has in assessing the creative process in addition to product of learning. I really believe arts educators should be leading this narrative shift.

A: I don’t think that the benefits show up differently, but I think the transfer of the skills becomes even more apparent and applicable. It also offers additional opportunities for students to practice the skills they learn in their arts classrooms. The benefits can multiply!

A: I would direct the state to others who have developed implementation frameworks and professional development around their portrait of a graduate. For example, Utah’s Portrait of a Graduate first states that “these are aspirations not necessarily meant to be quantified and measured” and are followed with model rubrics and exemplars. Similarly, Kentucky’s Portrait of a Learner framework is complimented by a guidance document that includes information on developing competency, performance outcomes, and indicators. North Carolina offers similar rubrics and suggestions for use, with professional learning modules to support implementation… including modules for the arts! This will look different for each state, but these are three examples of how the states have moved beyond the POG framework as a poster on a wall to something integral to education across the state.